Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crayola Box Theory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough. 21:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crayola Box Theory

Fails Google test. Seems to be original research, if not a copyvio Fagstein 04:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• This article is written purely based on my personal thoery. There is no copyright violations, and you are correct in stating that this is original research, as it is based on my personal observations. The reason this is not on google is beacuse I have never before published my thoughts, and I believed that wikipedia would be an accepting place for new ideas -- User: DA_Scar 20:26, 11 February 2006
  • Hence, it's original research. See Wikipedia:No original research. Fagstein 04:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Speedy if possible as contributor has admited article is original research. -Drdisque 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per Drdisque Mangojuice 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Professors at my Univerisity (NYU) have encouraged me to publish this article at Wikipedia as a testing ground for a potential Senior Thesis that I will be writing. Please allow this article to stay up as I would appreciated feedback on this article, and perhaps help me to write a better thesis. This is not something I just made up, but is rather the fruit of months of careful reasearch, study and polling. Please allow it to stay.User: DA_Scar 20:26, 11 February 2006
  • Please move the article to your User page then. Your professor appears to be misinformed, in that Wikipedia is not for original research. Fagstein 04:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per DA_Scar's admission that it's a WP:NOR violation. Let me guess, Gallatin? --Aaron 04:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whats the harm in allowing it to stay. I've seen articles on wikipedia that are still up that are completely fabricated. This article, however, is based on research, could you possibly allow it to stay up, as I believe people can benefit from this theory. I do not see the harm in allowing a well researched article to stay up on this site, if at least for a few more days. User: DA_Scar 21:13, 11 February 2006
• Delete (or userfy) per author's admission that this is original research. --Kinu 05:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• This article is based off conversations and documents I have read by leading experts in the field of pschyology and communications (human relations). It is not a random rant but a well reasearched and well thought out article. Please allow it to stay, I don't see the harm in allowing a well written, logical article to remain on this site. User: DA_Scar 21:19, 11 February 2006
  • I'll remind you aboutWP:NOR. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's a rant. And while you may not see the harm in leaving it up, that's no reason to violate Wikipedia policy. Besides, I don't see the problem in just moving it to your user page. Fagstein 05:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• How can I move this to my userpage. Sorry I'm pretty new to this. And can people still search it up even if its on my user page?DA Scar 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You just did. Fagstein 05:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete now that it's been moved to user page. Fagstein 05:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense.Blnguyen 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy per above.--み使い Mitsukai 07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:NOR and author has moved it to user page {{db-author}} candidate Avi 16:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and I'm not convinced it is original research. I've heard variations of this idea going back at least 15 years. I have no idea if anything about this was ever published but my prediction is you'd never be able to prove this in any sort of clinical trial... It was BS psedoscience then and it is BS pseudoscience now. Regardless, it isn't WP:V in any case.--Isotope23 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's original research and completely speculative. -- Mithent 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting but no. Original research doesn't belink on Wiki --† Ðy§ep§ion † 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.